If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

While looking at how racism is defined, I came across this thought-provoking piece:

The first thing you really need to understand is that the definition of racism that you probably have (which is the colloquial definition: "racism is prejudice against someone based on their skin color or ethnicity") is NOT the definition that's commonly used in anti-racist circles.

The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): "racism is prejudice plus power". What this means, in easy language:

A. Anyone can hold "racial prejudice" -- that is, they can carry positive or negative stereotypes of others based on racial characteristics. For example, a white person thinking all Asians are smart, or all black people are criminals; or a Chinese person thinking Japanese people are untrustworthy; or what-have-you. ANYONE, of any race, can have racial prejudices.

B. People of any race can commit acts of violence, mistreatment, ostracizing, etc., based on their racial prejudices. A black kid can beat up a white kid because he doesn't like white kids. An Indian person can refuse to associate with Asians. Whatever, you get the idea.

C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power...

While looking at how racism is defined, I came across this thought-provoking piece:

The first thing you really need to understand is that the definition of racism that you probably have (which is the colloquial definition: "racism is prejudice against someone based on their skin color or ethnicity") is NOT the definition that's commonly used in anti-racist circles.

Sounds like the definition above relates to institutionalised racism rather than individual racism. Of course an individual may be a part of institutionalised racism and perhaps when we describe someone as a racist we should use the term bigot instead. Both terms are used interchangeably here which leads to some confusion when we say for example "Is America a racist country?" or "Is Jesse Jackson a racist?" we mean two different things. Only the first relates to institutionalised racism.

We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. - Bertrand Russell

The first thing you really need to understand is that the definition of racism that you probably have (which is the colloquial definition: "racism is prejudice against someone based on their skin color or ethnicity") is NOT the definition that's commonly used in anti-racist circles.

You mean in leftard race-baiting circles restorting to a stipulative definition to hide their own virulent racism. It is in fact a racist revisionism, saying that only one race can be racist.

Originally Posted by Ian Murray

C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power...

But that's crap. In Malaysia, Malays have institutional power, and the country practiises apartheid against ethnic Chinese. In today's Africa, blacks have institutional power, and discriminate against the white minority. Even in the US, we have a black President and Attorney General, as well as black corporate leaders and judges. On the street, if blacks beat up a white person while screaming "you deserve this you honky white s*$t", they have the localized institutional power.

“Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”—Peter Harrison (Director of the Centre of the History of European Discourses at the University of Queensland), The Bible and the rise of science, Australasian Science23(3):14–15, 2002.

But that's crap. In Malaysia, Malays have institutional power, and the country practiises apartheid against ethnic Chinese. In today's Africa, blacks have institutional power, and discriminate against the white minority.

The paragraph reads: "In North America, white people have the institutional power. ...Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power". Obviously non-whites have the institutional power in other parts of the world.

Although racial discrimination is illegal, systemic racism (whether deliberate or subconscious, and despite equal opportunity policies) is still evident:

- the black unemployment rate is twice the white rate
- employers are more likely to choose a white job applicant over an equally-qualified black applicant
- job applicants with white-sounding names are more likely to be invited to interviews than those with black-sounding names
- loan applications from whites are approved more often than from equal-income blacks
- motorists pulled over by police are twice as likely to be arrested if black

These are documented examples; the job-applicant ones have been tested in field studies. There may be other factors at play, but not enough to outweigh the demographic ratio (72.4% white, 12.6% black).

Thank you for helping to demonstrate Ian's definition and for further demonstrating just how repulsive you are for justifying racism. A century ago, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants had the institutional power, both in America and in Australia. Sectarianism meant that Irish Catholics, a then marginalised group of people on an institutional level were subject to unjustified racism. It was not the improvement of Irish people that changed this situation, but the waning influence of the Protestant church and a better appreciation of the silliness of discrimination on sectarian and racial grounds that changed things for the better.

The Protestant/Catholic divide survived in Australia until 50-odd years ago (extant when I was young), then gradually dissipated following post-war immigration.

For over 150 years, until post-war migration diluted the mix, Australia was polarised between the majority Anglo Protestant Establishment and a minority Irish Catholic underclass. Religious differences reflected social and political tensions derived from colonial days and exacerbated by organisations like Freemasons, the Orange Lodge and Catholic secret societies. A self-imposed religious apartheid often saw Catholics go to Catholic schools, socialise in Catholic groups and work in traditional Catholic areas like the public service. Protestants likewise mingled mostly with their own, as a 1930s brochure, The Protestant’s Guide to Shopping in Rockhampton, hilariously demonstrates. Following the 1908 Ne Temere papal decree, religious and family protocols strongly discouraged inter-faith marriages – yet a quarter of Australian Catholics continued to marry ‘out’ until the late 1960s (Mol 1970). Such ‘mixed marriages’ often caused deep family divisions, from disinheritance to social exclusion. Children brought up in such marriages sometimes suffered a confused identity, not fully accepted by either ‘side’. The sectarian attitudes of the period no longer apply to Catholics and Protestants in Australia, but parallels can be drawn with post 9/11 attitudes towards Muslims – the new ‘Other’. http://arts.monash.edu.au/ecps/podca...conference.mp3

The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): "racism is prejudice plus power".

There certainly are academics, including several sociologists, who use or follow this definition but that does not prove it is "the accepted sociological definition".

I don't agree with it anyway (not that I'm a sociologist). I actually think it's dangerous since it can make it sound like the disempowered can't be racist, they can only be bigoted. But in Australia a lot of the bad form on race comes from marginalised, under-educated and "disempowered" people, and every now and then some leader comes along and empowers them.

The notion that a person only becomes racist when they are part of a powerful structure just seems absurd to me, and the notion that racism is an attribute of social structures and not individuals needlessly limits the scope of the term as a denunciation of individual attitudes.

Of course I believe systemic racism exists and it may well make sense to say systemic racism is prejudice + power.

None of those things below prove this. It presupposes that disparities equal discrimination. This in turn presupposes that numeric equality would be the norm without discrimination. But as Sowell has documented, racial disparities have been the norm throughout history in all inhabited continents. And in many of these cases, the group with the best numbers has not been in a position to discriminate.

Originally Posted by Ian Murray

the black unemployment rate is twice the white rate

Blame the crappy schools that the Dems keep blacks in failing public schools and impose minimum wage laws.

Originally Posted by Ian Murray

employers are more likely to choose a white job applicant over an equally-qualified black applicant

Under affirmative action, a black applicant will often be chosen over a batter qualified white application.

Originally Posted by Ian Murray

- loan applications from whites are approved more often than from equal-income blacks

Not when controlled for assets and credit score. The only exception was with a black-owned bank! Also, whites are approved less often than Asians, so leftards like IM would have to say that the US is anti-white by his own "reasoning". Sowell says:

A major factor in the housing boom and bust that created the present economic predicament was massive government intervention in the housing market, supposedly to correct discrimination in mortgage lending. How did they know that there was discrimination? Because blacks were turned down for mortgage loans at a higher rate than whites.

It so happens that whites were turned down for mortgage loans at a higher rate than Asian Americans, but that fact seldom made it into the newspaper headlines or the political rhetoric. Nor did either the mainstream media or political leaders mention the fact that black-owned banks turned down black mortgage loan applicants at least as often as white-owned banks did.

There was never the slightest reason to expect the different racial or ethnic groups in the United States to have the same credit ratings or the same behavior or performance in any other way, when both racial and non-racial groups of various sorts have for centuries had radically different patterns of behavior and performance in countries around the world.

Originally Posted by Ian Murray

These are documented examples; the job-applicant ones have been tested in field studies. There may be other factors at play, but not enough to outweigh the demographic ratio (72.4% white, 12.6% black).

A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 African Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact, that 93% of these murders are in fact perpetrated by other blacks. The analysis, supported by FBI records, finds that in 2005 alone, for example, African Americans accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the US — again, almost exclusively at the hands of other African Americans.

Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 15-04-2012 at 03:59 AM.

“Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”—Peter Harrison (Director of the Centre of the History of European Discourses at the University of Queensland), The Bible and the rise of science, Australasian Science23(3):14–15, 2002.

The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): "racism is prejudice plus power". What this means, in easy language:

The above, I think, is a valid definition.

C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power

This, however, I disagree with stongly, and in fact it does not follow at all from the definition at the top (which mentions power, but not specifically institutional power).

The second definition would mean that there are no white racists in South Africa, for example, simply because the government changed hands.

If a kid is beaten up because of his skin colour, that's racism, no matter the colour.

A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 African Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact, that 93% of these murders are in fact perpetrated by other blacks. The analysis, supported by FBI records, finds that in 2005 alone, for example, African Americans accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the US — again, almost exclusively at the hands of other African Americans.

And 84 percent of all white people murdered are murdered at the hands of white people. Are you going to be consistent and suggest that there is a "white on white crime" epidemic in America? Are you going to concede that white people have much more to fear from other white people than they do from black people?

Incidentally, the statistics also suggest that males are overwhelmingly killed by other males and that young adults and overwhelmingly killed by other young adults.

Given these phenomenena mentioned above, one must ask why you are chafing at the bit to highlight black on black crime? As I've already explained, people murdered are much more likely to be killed by family members, followed by friends and acquaintances, followed by those who live in the same community and only then followed by those who are complete strangers.

The only reasonable conclusion is that you wish to highlight black on black crime because you are a vicious and despicable racist.

The first thing you really need to understand is that the definition of racism that you probably have (which is the colloquial definition: "racism is prejudice against someone based on their skin color or ethnicity") is NOT the definition that's commonly used in anti-racist circles.

It shows that the one controlling the dictionary controls the debate. It's quite telling that victim-hood industry tries to redefine racism to suit their needs.

Originally Posted by Ian Murray

Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power...

Like Obama?

Last edited by Igor_Goldenberg; 15-04-2012 at 07:02 PM.

For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) email to IgorGoldenberg@bluebottle.com
Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

Apart from being a vicious and contemptible racist, GF is also a vile anti-Semite and anti-immigration bigot.

I said nothing about your race and said nothing negative about immigration, either with respect to yourself or with respect to other immigrants. I just feel that given your extensive history of getting involved in discussions on this board in which you are simply out of your depth, you would help yourself considerably by giving this discussion a miss.